Talk:Console wars/Archive01

Shouldn't atari jaguar be in there some where? in the N64/satur/etc/ days.

I had a thought that there should be the article "The First Console War" in relation to the big war between PS2, Xbox and Gamecube. And then "The Second Console War" in relation to the PS3, Xbox 360 and "Project Revolution." It's just a cool idea I had, it's up to you if you want it to happen.

Well, those sure aren't the first and second console wars. This stuff's been going on since before I knew what an analogue thumbstick was. Sockatume 14:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. You can go back pretty far: the Atari 2600/Intellivision "war" would almost certainly qualify. In general, I think it's a bad idea to start numbering these things. First of all, it's not all that useful unless you've already got encyclopedic knowledge of video game history, and secondly, there's likely to be a lot of debate on what constitutes a "war" (how does the handheld console market factor in? did the SMS/NES period count? etc.). If we're going to refer to them at all, we should specify the participants in some manner, and not just impose an arbitrary numbering scheme. – Seancdaug 21:58, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

The first console wars was in the 8 bit systems between Nintendo and sega, First nintendo had all the market until Sega came for a share. At that moment the war started with direct agresions in both sides and ofensive TV adds. (PYL)

Actually, almost ten years earlier the first console wars were between Atari and Intellivision (1980-84), with Colecovision added near the end. Coll7 23:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, they called the PS2/XBox/Gamecube the Next-Gen consoles. Is it possible for them to be the first next gen war or second next gen war?

I seem to recall the original PlayStation/N64/Saturn "war" being described as "next-gen" back in the days when everyone had either a SNES or Genesis. The term generally refers to either upcoming or newly released consoles, and, as such, tends to fall out of fashion when said consoles become old hat. I think introducing this ideas as a distinction between individual console wars in the article is a little NPOV for that reason, not to mention simply misleading. – Seancdaug 20:18, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I remember that era's consoles being called the "superconsoles" by the press of the time (I think our own article on the History of video games uses that name). The current era's machines are AFAIK the first to be called "next-generation consoles". If that label gets used by the upcoming generation, we'll certainly be in some bother, but I'd hold off on editing for now. Sockatume 20:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

PS2 and the like are still advertised as being next generation even though they aren't anymore. The PSX and Saturn were 32 bit consoles, they were called this a lot and its what they were. With the PS2 though they aren't 128 bit. Bits do not apply to modern consoles. You could call the dreamcast 128 bit to a degree though definatly not the other newer ones. -Josquius

Current Generation sales figures

Just wondering if there's a source for these numbers... I don't doubt them, yet it would be comforting to see them verified.

-BlkStarr

A lot of them are unverifiable. I have serious doubts about the Xbox and Game Cube sales numbers. Just based on the difference in Japanese and Asian sales the difference of 5 million units seems absolutely improbable. That should probably be fixed. The Sony numbers come from a press release issued by Sony that they SHIPPED 85 million units of PS2 hardware a while back. The MS and Nintendo numbers are based on various estimates and as I said likely incorrect. Also remember there are issues going back a while with inflated numbers (example Microsoft marking refurbished Xbox sales as new). The numbers are likely wrong, this is a lot of the problem with statistics here on Wikipedia. They lack proper sourcing, and in the case of game sales they change.

The easy answer would of course be for us to take these numbers off. (Especially since someone just changed them again, and I have a feeling I know where they came from considering the discussion I had on another forum which lead to the sourcing of the site for the numbers) Suggestions?

Is Hadal (who apparently last changed the numbers) someone from another forum? Care to post the source for the stats? Correction, it's IP 203.58.188.211 who changed it. My mistake. A quick look here tells me its someone from Australia http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=203.58.188.211

User:MysteriousMystery 03:26 5,19, 2005.

There are lies, damned lies, and console sales statistics, so unless a good source appears, nix them. Sockatume 02:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I got them from game central, I've also seen ones around games web sites which were mostly similar, I just averaged them out counting in respectability of the source (i.e. some stupid ones said 30 million for gamecube whilst even stupider ones said 5 million) -Josquius

The numbers seem close to what I would expect though maybe slightly out of date. User:MysteriousMystery 03:35 5,20, 2005.

I have found a source for a variety of consoles here, make of them what you will. It would be nice to have a numerical attribute to the conclusions reached here. http://journal.pcvsconsole.com/?thread=14306 --Pluke 16:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Those numbers are really off. A good example is the TurboGrafx 16 listing, that's likely correct for the US TG16, but it fails to count 10 million or so PC engine/ PcEngine Duo system sales in Japan. I am also aware that 450,000 US Turbo Duos were produced and around 90,000 Turbo Express sytems those numbers are way low when factoring that in, the reason this is a complaint is that the same source sales figure combine Genesis and Mega Drive numbers worldwide. That's why it's not a good idea to take those sales estimates in to account. Atari Jaguar CD had only 50,00 units produced (this is widely documented in the Atari community) with a sell through of about 60%, meaning those numbers are also way off. The NES/Famicom number is also combined, and it seems low, especially when you consider the farms of Famiclones (which are sold on the market even today) that play legit NES and Famicom cartridges. Also, another huge problem with this source, The "Panasonic never released sales figured for 3DO" statement is ludicrious since the 3DO wasn't just produced by Panasonic but was a technology licensed by several other companies worldwide and incorporated into game systems, those companies include Goldstar and Sanyo in addition to Panasonic. This source is completely discredited by those problems alone. User:MysteriousMystery 02:27 7,1, 2005.

Thanks for the feedback MysteriousMystery, you definitely seem to know your stuff. From reading your profile you seem to have a few industry connections, any chance you know of a way to officially source some figures? Such information would be a fantastic addition to this page. --Pluke 1 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

There is no way to get exact sales figures (both sell through and shipped units). There are ways to take estimates which is by simply looking over sales figures in tracked markets. But even those numbers (for example NPD data) isn't correct since it only tracks certain chains (a number of large mass retail chains are untracked by NPD as well as a lot of independently run game stores) and stores sell through. With older generation consoles it gets a lot more difficult since those numbers are lost in time or tracked only by former employees of the companies in question. The Atari Jaguar numbers for example are well known because a lot of former Atari employees are active in what remains of the Jaguar community, a similar situation exists with a lot of the more popular older platforms (example TG16). Anyway, you can't get any better than estimates, and some estimates are better than others.User:MysteriousMystery 12:31 7,1, 2005.

We still don't have a good source for the numbers. All the links trace back to a single person posting on message boards. Further, I really don't believe the PS2 has sold over 100 million consoles. That sounds like a 'shipped' number. I'd love for somebody to prove me wrong, though. That would mean we'd have a trust-worthy source. --Slavik81 08:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Couple of links for sales:

• Gaming-Age forums
• PVC forums

Consoles to mention in titles

Hmm, just now we've not got the N64 mentioned in the title of the 32-bit era competition, and the DC absent from the title of the 128-bit era, although naturally both are well-covered in the main text. While I've got no objections in the case of the latter (the PS2 first for unit sales, Xbox and GC apparently tied for second, and leave off the rest), I'm not so sure about the former. Did the Saturn outsell the N64, or the other way around? Sockatume 18:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

A few notes and a few replies, first off the Xbox and GC aren't quite tied. A quick look of the markets indicate to Game Cube's edge in the Asian markets give it an overall worldwide advantage, though for North America the console war is still quite close leaning towards the Xbox at the moment. Keep in mind that Microsoft has slowed hardware production of the original Xbox since before the Holiday season to cut costs and that once the Xbox 360 is relesaed production may be haulted all together. Nintendo is more than likely to keep Game Cube production at a constant so its almost an inevitability that Nintendo will wind up with more hardware sold in North America by the end of the systems run. Remember this generation still isn't over and Nintendo has another 18 or so months of life still planned for the Cube (or more due to the full backward compatibility with the Revolution rather than just playing selected games). While the Xbox is nearing its curtain call.

As to your other questions. While the Saturn outsold the N64 in Japan, (systems sales were overall slightly higher though the Saturn sold a lot more software). This was not the case worldwide. Many people forget that the Sega Saturn was so popular in Japan that despite a substancially smaller installed base Saturn games outsold Playstation games for the systems first three years on the market (until 1998 when Sega was prepping the Dreamcast and support dwindled). The Saturn didn't fare so well in other markets while the N64 was quite successful. As I'm sure you're aware, In North America and Europe the N64 outsold the Saturn in Both Hardware and Software and the N64 was the overall winner worldwide between it and the Saturn. Its worth noting that none of the three systems (The N64, Saturn or PSone) could be considered a failure as all three systems did fairly well in one market or another with the PSone being the overall leader.

I should also mention that around the early mid 90s timeframe there are other console wars that existed, but those were wars of failed consoles. For example the Atari Jaguar and 3DO had an intense rivalry and though neither system caught on in the mainstream both platforms pushed to be the "next big thing" which never came their way. User:MysteriousMystery 17:02 5,21, 2005.

So, the N64/Saturn and the GC/Xbox are comparable in sales on a worldwide scale, whatever the regional variations? Well, in any case, do you think that the N64 had a sufficiently notable part to play in the 32-bit console rivalry to merit inclusion in the 32-bit "war"'s title? Sockatume 14:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely the N64 had a suffiencently notable part. While worldwide the Playstation was already established by the time Nintendo reached the market, the N64 gave the Playstation a run for its money, particularly in terms of software sales. Also the N64 wasn't exactly 64-bit. Much like our old friend the Atari Jaguar it depends on your intepretation of where the bits of a system lie. A good example is you could argue that the Xbox (based on a 32-bit Celron) is 32-bit while the Atari Jaguar which has several 64-bit chips in its distributed cluster of processors is 64-bit. This is why its important we don't refer to the current generation as the 128-bit era, much the same way calling the previous era of gaming the 32-bit era is somewhat misleading as well. Bits haven't been important since the 16-bit era.User:MysteriousMystery 17:56 5,22, 2005.

Wholeheartedly agreed. I tried to talk people into renaming them all as "First generation" etc. etc. etc. a while ago, but I was a bit too half-hearted about it. Maybe time to start asking again. Sockatume 01:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Up to the 16-bit era the naming scheme is fine (speaking of which, the Neo Geo AES really should have a mention in that section of the article), after that you might want to call it the failed Generation (a section reserved for the Jaguar, 3DO, CDI, Amiga CD32, ect), Next Generation which was the first time the term was thrown around for the PSone, Saturn, N64 and the never released M2 (and also the title of the now defunct Next Gen magazine). The current generation can be listed as such until a more appropriate title can be assigned.User:MysteriousMystery 22:38 5,22, 2005.

This article is about console wars, not which consoles existed. The lateness of the N64's release led to it being very little threat to the psx and so it should not be included here. The Saturn vs. psx console war was a major event in computer games history, the N64 had nothing to do with this.

For the Gamecube having the advantage over the xbox- definatly not. The Xbox has been the more succesful. Do the maths. Gamecube: more succesful in Japan, population not even 130 million. The USA alone has 300 million people, Europe about the same and it is in these that the xbox has been far more succesful. Though this generation is not over the console wars are. Final sales figures do not matter, in the competition for market space sony won by a long shot followed by microsoft then nintendo. A console war requires some sort of competition. The advertising for all companies is drying up and the next generation is definatly the target for all of them (or handhelds in the case of nintendo)

The GameCube definitely has an advantage over the Xbox. The GameCube and Xbox are within a reasonable proximity of one another in North America and Europe (within a million or so units). The Xbox is basically dead in Japan which is a big market for Nintendo and as a result Nintendo has a several million system lead in that territory. Nintendo has the worldwide lead over Microsoft in hardware sold. Your argument about populations is completely flawed and not based in reality, its not like the percentage differential is identical between the GC and the Xbox in those markets as it is in Japan. Also Europe is a smaller market than Japan is for the video game market anyway. Per capita Japan sells more game systems and games. User:MysteriousMystery 02:18 7,1, 2005.

Per capita, yes, but overall - not even close. There are more than half a billion people in Europe, and Japan has barely 100 million. Europe is a much larger market than Japan. Even diehard Nintendo fans have acknowledged the Xbox's worldwide lead. There's no shame for Nintendo fans, because Microsoft spent a lot more money on promotions - no doubt Nintendo made a lot more money from the GC than Microsoft made from the Xbox. But don't deny the truth. Kirkbroadhurst 04:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

For bits- yes to the new generation not being 128 bit. Modern PCs are only just becoming 64 bit. I was one of the main fighters against that change. I think 32 bit can stay as it is though, that is a sane number. It is the generation where consoles caught up with the also 32 bit PCs. - Josquius

This article is about console wars not PCs. Also it really is the 32/64 bit era because Sega, Sony and Nintendo where the three important players, thus 32-bit and 64-bit. Remove the bits name if you wish, fact is 32 and 64 bit happened in the same era. You can not say one doesn't belong simply because it had no chance in winning, it's not just about winning a era, it's about gaining position or losing it too. The Nintendo 64 made just as much as an impact as the Nintendo GameCube either mention none or mention both the consoles in the subject titles. Both were released late in the current war and would not likely win the war, but the both battled in it. Consistency is a must in things like this, else it becomes: "He says/She says." Also to avoid this whole issue I've got a suggestion for the contents/subtitles, why not just name it:

- The 8-bit era

     * Sega Master System
     * Nintendo Famicom/Nintendo Entertainment System

- The handheld wars

     * Nintendo Game Boy
     * Sega Game Gear
     * Atari Lynx
     * Neo Geo Pocket
     * WonderSwan

- The 16-bit era

     * Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis
     * Super Nintendo Entertainment System/Super Famicom
     * TurboGrafx-16

- The 32-bit / 64-bit era

     * Sony PlayStation
     * Sega Saturn
     * Nintendo 64

- The next generation era

     * Sega Dreamcast
     * Sony PlayStation 2
     * Microsoft Xbox
     * Nintendo GameCube

- The next-gen handheld war

     * Sony PSP
     * Nintendo DS

- The future war (for example: 2005 - onwards)

     * Microsoft Xbox 360 (for example: release date 2005 end)
     * Sony PlayStation 2
     * Nintendo Revolution

Then naming the time period in which it takes place in to confirm a logical order to subjects. Also make it clear who won which era (for the finished ones) in one look. Am I on to something or what? This fanboy ordering and putting in subtitle or removing is childish. ShotokanTuning 02:35, 6 June 2005 (UTC)

With PCs- you are totally missing my point. Reread what I am saying.

What fanboy ordering? If the N64 is included in a title this must be seperate to psx vs. saturn. The psx vs. saturn was a major event that the N64 had F.A to do with other then a few magazine articles wondering if the ultra 64 would upset the balance when it was released. The n64 had some minor competition with the psx though it had pretty much none with the saturn, it had more competitive cross over with the dreamcast then the saturn (though this was still minor). Dreamcast: It failed to make a impact enough to start a console war. Its main advertising was blown before the ps2 was released and it was not long after its release that it was clear the dreamcast had failed. I don't think the dreamcast had any competition with the GC and xbox, it was gone before they came out.

Turbogrfx 16- WTF? The pc engine was not a contender, it was halfway between 8 bit and 16 bit, never released in Europe and only given a minor release in north America. It had moderate success in Japan though it did not take market share from the other two because of this.

It was far more successful in Japan than the MegaDrive and was a big time competitor to the Super Famicom initially. It was released in Europe, however it wasn't widely distributed. check the wikipedia page on the TG.User:MysteriousMystery 02:21 7,1, 2005.

Handhelds- None of the others are title worthy. The main contest was only between the gameboy and game gear. Lynx...I'm not too sure about it TBH though I know it was never a serious threat. Neo Geo, its brief contest with the gameboy pocket (or was it colour...) came years after the game gear was dead and buried. The same goes for the Japan only wonderswan too. - josquius

Josquius I agree with you there. The N64 didn't really compete with the Saturn and it did with the PSX. That's one of the reasons I say drop the VS. title from the era/subject line. It's confusing and I think it’s is better avoided. Quote: "What fanboy ordering?" Reply: Ordering the consoles by release date would remove fanboy ordering as a possibility. Something like this example (winner is in bold, in this case this is not a fact but a fair assumption):

- The next generation era - 1998 until Present

     * Sega Dreamcast - 1998 until 2001
     * Sony PlayStation 2 - 2000 until Present
     * Microsoft Xbox - 2001 until Present
     * Nintendo GameCube - 2001 until Present

or this more like the current example:

- The next generation era: Sony PlayStation 2 vs. Microsoft Xbox vs. Nintendo GameCube

     * Sega Dreamcast - 1998 until 2001
     * Sony PlayStation 2 - 2000 until Present
     * Microsoft Xbox - 2001 until Present
     * Nintendo GameCube - 2001 until Present

Suggestions anyone? - ShotokanTuning

Nintendo 64 / PlayStation Rivalry not mentioned?

Why is the rivalry with the PlayStation primarily Saturn oriented? The N64 and PS were the main consoles of that generation, and I believe that section should be re-written. The Saturn was not nearly as big as the N64. The N64's final sales figures was around 33 million and the Saturn's was 9.2 million. The N64 sold 3X as much, yet the Saturn is talked about as if it sold massive amounts and was the primary rival console with the PS?

Current Generation part had a clear Nintendo bias

I have edited the sales figure to represent latest figures, fixed the overall worldwide lead:

PS2 1st, Xbox 2nd, Gamecube third. And edited it to remove bias rom the WHOLE article as much as I could.

The GameCube has higher worldwide sales than the Xbox, As far as the text of the article I'd have to scroll back and look at what it said. But at the moment I don't see a bias. The numbers have also been changed back. If you numbers are STRICTLY US sales numbers than the Xbox is slightly ahead but the Worldwide sales are clearly in favor of Nintendo.

They are not, if these numbers are to be believed:[1]

The problem with the post is that it's not necessarily accurate. Look at the missing information on the Xbox sales as well as units shipped. Right off hand we know that's not credible information since it's missing information. I think 21.9 million is extremely high for Xbox, my guess is that's units shipped and not sold. Gaming-Ages forums were a great place to get information, loaded with many former magazine editors, insiders, and more. As time has gone on much of that community has dispersed and a lot of quality of information is not longer as legitimate. But anyway, the problem with those numbers are the missing Xbox units sold per market, without that information its really hard to verify those sales numbers.

Contradiction in the 'loss on console sale'

The GameCube's profits per console sold are better than those of Microsoft's Xbox. Nintendo have recently made a point of selling hardware at profit (this includes the Game Boy Advance variants and the GameCube), and there is a distinct lack of piracy in comparison to the PlayStation 2 and Xbox. Microsoft is believed to lose roughly $100 on every Xbox sold. While they make up some of it back in software profits, the Xbox still loses money overall. Both Sony and Nintendo also loose money in hardware sales, but at different amounts.

Clear contradiction - does Nintendo 'loose' (or 'lose') money, or do the sell at a profit? They can't be doing both at once. I'd change it but I am not sure which way to change it. I've always heard (as have most people) that Nintendo makes money on consoles, but heresay isn't really good enough evidence. Kirkbroadhurst 18:43, 4 Sep 2005 (AEST)

Nintendo lost money initially when the Game Cube was released, as manufacturing costs went down (as well as the price) this changed. By 2003 they were making a bit of mone on every system sold, however overall throughout the Game Cube's lifespan Nintendo probably lost a bit of money on hardware manufacturing.

Could you provide a source for this information? That would be really helpful. LFAS 21:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What to call next gen?

The only name I have ever found for the PS2, Xbox et all is Next Generation consoles. Yet with the actual next generation coming along this is really not a very good phrase to use. Current generation works for now (though doesn't sound right with era) though what about next year when we have all the new consoles out? As mentioned elsewhere they are not 128 bit, all of this 'seventh generation' stuff is rubbish, etc... -Josquius

I added something to the PS3 info

I remember reading on gamespot a while ago about how Sony are probably going to rerelease the PS2 at a cheaper price next year, to try and disrupt the 360 sales, and then release the PS3 in 2007 so it will be as high quality as possible. Just checking it's acceptable (as this is based on what Sony strategists have said, not just pure speculation)

A Suggestion

It seems we have an edit war. I think that the N64 was just as big a player as PSX and SS. The N64 obviously didn't lose, because Nintendo made the Gamecube (that's not to say that it won, either). Josquius seems to think otherwise. So how about we remove ALL bias in this article, 'cause there is plenty. Any console that ever "lost" was because it didn't have a successor. Which means that neither N64, PSX, or SS "won", but Dreamcast "lost, and Atari Jaguar "lost" (I think Jaguar was the last of the Ataris). Saying that the N64 (or Saturn or any other system that was definately major) was/is minor is just Sony/MS fanboyism. --Zeromaru^TC 23:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

...a console loosing means it was not as succesful as the others. There have never been any winners or loosers amongst major consoles except for the dreamcast by that reasoning which is just not true. I have never dismissed the N64 as minor,all I am saying is that it did not participate in the 32 bit console war, it tried too however missed its projected release date and ended up coming out long after the war was over and both of the other manufacturers were working on their successor (especially Sega). When the N64 came out there was just no console war apart from the occasional nintendo fanboy pointing out how much more powerful it was and how much better its game were. Only a serious idiot would argue it was much competition for the PSX which had already gained pretty much all the market share there was to gain. Console wars are not about which consoles have ever existed, they are a state of being in the scene. Companies over inflating figures to put the other in a bad light, single format magazines slinging dirt at each other, kids arguing in the playground, MAJOR advertising pushes. They really only ever occur in the early days of consoles. -Josquius

No. The Nintendo 64 was definitely a contender in the war that era, regardless of whether it stood a chance of "winning" or not. This is a commonly accepted fact; you're the ONLY person I've met who thinks the N64 wasn't part of any rivalry at that point in time, when it's pretty obvious it was. Also, calling anyone who disagrees with you "a serious idiot" isn't going to win you brownie points. --Shadow Hog 23:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

...you are going against me on facts? The serious idiot comment was not aimed at anyone as it is usually pretty much accepted the N64 had a rather unique position between 32 bit and next gen consoles. If you are arguing that though...Well you said it not me. -Josquius —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.240.229.7 (talk • contribs) .

To resolve this dispute, first conduct a survey, whether people agree or oppose removing the N64 from the list of that generation's console wars. If that doesn't work, request a mediation. Insulting won't gain you any supporter. I am reverting your changes because the article had N64 in that generation's console war before you came and modify it. Noteworthy is that each console wars had a representative console of an industry developer with career or with success (Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft). Also, note that articles outside Wikipedia include N64 in their 32 bit war GameFAQs BBC -- ReyBrujo 12:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not insulting people. He was insulting himself. I used serious idiot to stress just how accepted what I said is. Could be some typical fanboy psych work going on there.

For the N64 being there before 'I came and modifiy it', I was the one who started the article and did a lot of the work on this and you will notice the default version is PSX vs. Saturn with N64 being just a (rather large) footnote.

As I have said numerous times this page is about console wars, not every console that has ever existed. I am not 100% here but the Saturn may not have even been supported by Sega by the time the N64 came along, they were certainly heavily fazing it out and moving onto the dreamcast. The N64 was never in actual active competition with the Saturn. You can create a new section of PSX vs. N64 if you wish but definatly not N64 vs. Saturn.

Addition- If you look the article itself even says the Saturn was on its last legs by the time the N64 was out. The console war was over. -- Josquius 15:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the war between Saturn and Playstation was over by the time N64 came around, but then the second part of the war began with N64 vs PSX. So maybe it should be seperated into two sections, the "32-bit "era and the "Previous-generation" era, which should also include the Dreamcast. Would that be to satisfaction? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeromaru (talk • contribs) .

I have no problem with the current article layout, I thought the original version had N64 in the list. -- ReyBrujo 18:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fine as is. In effort to appease the ONE person who swears the N64 didn't war with anything, I've split up the 32-bit/64-bit era into two seperate wars under the same header, but face it, the PS1 and the N64 WERE rivals, regardless of when the N64 came into the scene. Ask anyone on here, I think you'll find it to be rather unanimous.

BTW, are we doing that poll, and if so, when do we start it? --Shadow Hog 15:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

except that is not what the article was saying. The article was saying the N64 competed against the PSX AND the Saturn which is didn't.

Its competition against the PSX wasn't really a console war either though it seems you yanks have a totally different definition of what one is. --Josquius 23:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Why don't just remove the console names from the title? The TOC is really ugly the way it is. Why don't just call "Original Console Wars", "Second Generation War", "Third Generation War", etc, and add inside the section the consoles that took part in the war? -- ReyBrujo 18:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

My rationale to recommend a change in the original naming scheme: I have no idea what fifth and sixth generation mean or which machines they refer to, and I worked in the industry during the times under discussion. As has been pointed out, other names are likewise flawed... Once you get past 16-bit the processor classification gets meaningless. "Next Gen" has now described the onset of three different eras over ten years. To me "When Xbox Challenged PS2 in North America" immediately tells me what we're discussing. I know that some members here HATE attaching the key combatants' names. If that sentiment carried the day, my second choice would be to pick a time-based header, such as "Console Wars 1995-2000" with sub-heads for Europe, Japan and North America, "Console Wars 2001-2004", "Console Wars 2005-2007" etc. If I guessed when "fifth generation" is in Wikipedia I could be off by 5+ years and picture the wrong machines. If we label it by years and continents the header will make it clear what text should follow. Thanks. Coll7 22:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right, even I get lost after third generation, since my last console is a SNES (not counting portable). Or use a descriptive title which doesn't sound like a fairy tale ("When Xbox Challenged PS2 in North America", "And PS2 lived happily until 2005", etc ;-)). Maybe a graphic timeline and lines representing each of the console, highlightening when the "wars" were held, and commenting them below. -- ReyBrujo 03:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that changing the naming scheme to include the years would make it a lot easier for anyone checking out the article to find the information they want. LFAS 21:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

As for the survey, one must be held nevertheless. It could be a straw or a opinion survey. The first one is held between people who check this article only, while the other involves making it public for any member of Wikipedia. As you can imagine, the first one involves a rather quick votation. According to the guidelines, the following questions must be answered:

• What questions should be asked?
• What will the possible answers be?
• Where a question has three or more possible answers, are people allowed to select more than one answer?
• When is the deadline?
• How will the survey be totalled?
• Will there be a summary of arguments, or a series of mini-essays, or some other way to inform users prior to the survey.

It should be possible to form the survey in less than a week, and keep it running for at least a week. Results are to be respected, if any will feel unconfortable about accepting the results of a survey, he should state so. -- ReyBrujo 18:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Added Atari/Intellivision/Colecovision, Edited Intro

I added the first console war, which took place only in North America but was a huge deal there. It set the stage for much of what came later and I tried to concisely give that historical perspective.

I also copy edited the intro some -- I think I kept all the original content but please review to see if I mucked something up.

All comments and suggestions are welcome. Coll7 03:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

RAM in Gamecube at retail vs. RAM in developer's SDK

According to the Nintendo Gamecube News Page there is only 24 MB 1T-SDRAM. The SDK has 48 MB 1T-SDRAM hence the confusion.

Bias Towards Nintendo

The portable console section seems very biased towards Nintendo. I edited a little snipit which degraded the PSPs analog stick, but the entire article still sounds biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.172.27.176 (talk • contribs) .

Release Dates - PS3 and REV

Revolution will be released earlier than PS3, that was confirmed by nintendo several times...

Although no official date it will probrably be around the E3 wich happens in may... PS3 is expected in the summer of this year... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.150.78.83 (talk • contribs) .

Please, give a link with that information. Although I do believe the PlayStation 3 will launch after Revolution, we cannot speculate. -- ReyBrujo 21:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Satoru Iwata mentioned in a recent japanese interview that they are aiming for a thanksgiving release in the US, and sometime before new year in Japan. No news on Europe. source -- 80.221.178.224 11:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sales figures...

What is with this inclusion of worldwide sales figures? It is somewhat misleading with this article being about the console wars and many consoles continuing to sell well even after the console war in which they took place has finished (particularly thinking of the SNES here, also could be the PSX but its really far out in front anyway to begin with...) --Josquius 15:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Xbox & Gamecube sales

I though the Xbox beat the gamecube sales!? I was watching some documentary over the lost and death of the Dreamcast. They said, the xbox beat the gamecube. How come the Gamecube is the only one to have a source!? And how come, I just went to the Xbox main article, and it said it sold up to 22 million units!? Get your facts correct!

>x<ino 00:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the Xbox is doing a lot better then the gamecube. I guess its just Nintendo fanboys found some stats which show the gamecube in a good light but couldn't be bothered to find similar stats for the xbox.--Josquius 14:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4983266.stm could we use the bbc site as a source for sales? Pluke 15:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not. BBC is one of the most reputable out there. Backs up what I read elsewhere. --Josquius 14:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with BBC numbers is that they don't differentiate between "sold" and "shipped". By now, everyone knows Microsoft and Sony release shipping numbers, and only selling numbers when reaching a notable mark (like 100m, with the PS1). Sony did not sell 100m PS2, they shipped that amount. Sales figures don't exist. [2] Thus, the amount they state Xbox and sold may be the number of shipped units. However, people would argue that BBC said they sold that amount instead, and we would get an edit war about such a clear point. -- ReyBrujo 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the BBC article states sold, not shipped. Surely Edge or another reputable magazine has featured sales before? Pluke 09:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The official Sony Europe site states cumulative worldwide shipments for both PS [3] and PS2. [4] Note that in the PS case, inside the article they talk about selling XX amount of hardware during a certain period, so they do know the difference between shipments and sold units.

Also, see the PSP shipments [5] in the official Japanese site. Note that they have shipped, by 2006-03-31, 17.03m units, including 4.70m in Japan. However, in the latest sales data for Japan [6] they have sold 3.5m. Thus, there is an important difference (a near 25%) shipped and sold. If we are picky, and check how many they sold by 2006-03-31, [7] we will see there were 3.2m sold only, almost a third between shipped and sold. That is why I am against just stating "sold" instead of "shipped". -- ReyBrujo 13:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've come across a large discrepency in the PSP shipped/sold debate. Perhaps you can help and if relevant enough, will be added to the sales section here. The following link takes you to a post of mine at my forum (I'm not trying to advertise, I'm just looking for the truth). Perhaps I'm missing something yet no one else has been able to account for the large discrepency. http://forums.e-mpire.com/showpost.php?p=1166715&postcount=1 To sum up, Sony has sold approx 12-14 million PSPs yet they claim to have shipped over 20 million (Including 600,000 between July 1st and July 24th yet as sales indicate, that's way higher than the rate of actual sales). This 6-8 million differnce in sold and shipped is far higher than any console I've ever read about. Nintendo had a 1 million console surplus a few years ago and halted production yet they made the issue widely known. My question is, is the 6-8 million PSP unit discrepency between shipped and sold real and is that relevant to be added to the Wiki? The Viper 09:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

LMAO. The Xbox is doing no where near a lot better than the GC. Xbox is out of production, and has sold only about 2 million more than the GC. GameCube is still in production, and the number of more Xbox's sold than GC's gets smaller every day.-Mega Man 5 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Scope of Price Section

"Tell me why you would buy a $600 PS3? People are going to buy two machines. They're going to buy an Xbox and they're going to buy a Wii ... for the price of one PS3."

The purpose for including the quote from Peter Moore needs to be rationalized. As presented, it lends itself to an influence of bias in this context. Mallignamius

I really don't think its needed, people are editing this article to be way too much about the next generation when it is supposed to be about historical cvg stuff mainly--Josquius 13:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Cite some sources, people...

How long are we going to allow these supposed sales figures stay up without proper (or, heck, any) sources?

One week from today, any Sales Figures that do not have a proper sources will be removed from this article. 71.244.180.131 04:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it took a few mins, but any source that is uncited has been removed. In addition, I think we can all agree that a random post on some random message board is *not* a credible source - so those figures are gone as well. 71.244.180.131 13:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit, as the numbers are in line with the ones shown on the articles for the individual consoles. I think it would be best for this article to simply stay in line with those, rather then state it as an unknown. - ZakuSage 02:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the best thing would be to find a reliable source, n'est-ce pas? Do the other articles cite a reliable source for their numbers, or do the supposed sales numbers within those articles need to be removed as well? 71.244.180.131 00:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As much as I like the content generally, the problem of "citation scarcity" in the article is not limited to sales figures. For example

• "These wars mainly took place in the United Kingdom, which during the late 80s was the centre of the world computer game industry," (I agree with the latter half of this remark, but this is not totally uncontroversial and something should be cited in support)Gepstein 03:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Psychological Speculation? I'm not really sure what is proper protocol here, but I would think it's not okay for the article to contain the sentences: "Psychologically, debates amongst fans in a console war can be seen to be a way of dispelling buyer's remorse. This is because game consoles are often a significant outlay for a youth, and often a gamer feels they can only afford to choose one. Realizing as more games are released that one has chosen incorrectly can be a major ego bruise." (see first heading in article) This strikes me as plausible, but not something appropriate for an encyclopedia entry without some kind of citation (like a survey conducted). For consider: how does the author know this? Gepstein 03:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly any contents in the article that is counted as “original research” are not allowed under the Wikipedia policies (See Wikipedia citing sources). And it’s quite obvious that if article is not cited, it will be considered to be an “original research,” an original thought of the people who added it since there is no reliable source to refer to. (See Wikipedia:No original research under "reliable source" section) The purpose of this concept is to prevent people to draw others’ attention to their ideas by using Wikipedia as the medium. (See Wikipedia:No original research under "What is excluded?" section) I, therefore, viewed that any content that cannot be cited should not be allowed here. Muham 16:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is very informative, but I agree with the previous two posts that it would be even stronger if citations were added to all of the content. According to Wikipedia policy, if your content is challenged and you have not provided a citation, your content can be removed. To make sure all the hard work that has been poured into this article remains available and stable in the future, especially for a topic like console wars that people are really passionate about and are likely to challenge, it is important that you try to add all the citations that you can. LFAS 21:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sold vs. Shipped

In the handheld wars section, specifically DS vs. PSP, I think there should some distinguishing comments about units sold vs. units shipped. The numbers as simply laid out make the two handhelds seem neck and neck, but I've seen various numbers from actual sales data(from NPD and Media-Create, etc.) which would suggest that in sales the PSP actually has about 12 to 14 million worldwide, not 20. I know for a fact that the DS has higher overall sales currently in Japan, the US, and Europe, but from simply looking at the article there would be no way to tell that, and it in fact looks like they have less sales in those areas. Does anyone else think there should be some kind of distinction?--68.208.119.66 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed this is discussed in the 'Xbox and Gamecube' sales, didn't think to lok there when wondering about this topic! But yes, I believe that the 6 to 8 million discrepancy does in fact exist and should be noted somewhere in the article. You can get actual sales data but it takes some legwork which I'm not willing to do at the moment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greatn (talk • contribs) .

I've done much of the legwork myself at my site. I don't know if you want to consider anything I've posted there to be 'official' but it does raise eyebrows. http://forums.e-mpire.com/showthread.php?t=59623 I have all NPD sales figures since DS and PSP launch and Media Create sale figures for Japan since launch. They are very close to the numbers reported by Nintendo as 'sold' yet fall almost half of the numbers presented by Sony as 'shipped'. I've never seen a stockpiling that big before, ever (bigger than the Atari E.T. stockpile) and I've been covering the industry for a long time.--The Viper 04:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See, this is a huge discrepancy, and does have good data to back it. I dfinitely feel that some mention of that belongs in there.Greatn 14:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the discrepency between sold and shipped should be discussed somewhere in the article. Not knowing much about this topic before reading this article, I find this fact very interesting. LFAS 21:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

World wide NES sales figures

As VGcharts can not be used as a reputable source for sales information, I've changed the World wide sales figures for the NES console to be in line with what the article Nintendo Entertainment System reads, 60 million, to avoid confusion and to retain the purpose of showing the World wide sales figures sections (to give a general idea of how each console faired). - ZakuSage 23:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Gameboy sold well because of games also

The Gameboy sold well because of the games. Remember, games sell a consol, not the hardware. They were just better made for handheld systems.

According to G4TV's Icons(note: some episodes featured are Icons, were then years later reshown on a program called Game Makers, it the same thing) they released a game for the Super Nintendo which allowed people to play Gameboy games on their regular system. I don't remember the exact number mentioned, but I think it was about half a million units.

The games were just more fun, and kept you busy longer, plus the Gameboy was also small enough to actually take with you places, and Nintendo at that time had a lot of brand loyalty. Dream Focus 15:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

nexgenwars.com

Please note the site's explanatory post, as well as Talk:Wii/archive19#670,000 or so units sold for reasons why nexgenwars.com is not a suitable source for sales figures. Dancter 03:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)